Sara defense questions SEC summary of shareholdings

The defense of Vice President Sara Duterte on Monday questioned the prosecution’s presentation of an SEC summary of her alleged shareholdings, warning that the way corporate figures were labeled could “condition the mind of the public” during her impeachment trial.

Defense lawyer Justin Nicol Gular objected to a summary prepared by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) witness Atty. Gerardo Del Rosario, saying the defense had received the document only during Monday’s proceedings and that a quick review raised questions about how the figures were presented.

"Before the flashing of these...A quick perusal of the documents already shows some misrepresentation, your honor. For example, the summary is labeled as 'Summary of Vice President Sara Duterte's Shareholding.' But it then appears in the summary, authorized capital stock, amount subscribed, amount paid up by the corporations, not by the Vice President," Gular told the impeachment court..

“This is again an attempt, and apologies to use the term, to condition the mind of the public over these figures that will be flashed,” he added.

The prosecution had asked to use the summary to shorten Del Rosario’s testimony, which involves hundreds of corporate documents. Prosecutor Erwin Matib said summaries were allowed under the Rules of Court and had been used by the impeachment court to expedite proceedings.

"I'm looking at the summaries now. Mayroong specific columns for Vice President Sara Duterte, mayroon pong separate column sa company total. Malinaw naman dito na mahihiwalay natin 'yung mga impormasyon tungkol kay VP Sara or sa kanyang asawa na si Atty. Manases R. Carpio," said prosecution lawyer Erwin Matib.

"So hindi misleading itong summary. In fact, kung may mga kompanya na hindi nakabanggit 'yung pangalan niya, malinaw naman, nababasa naman dito na 'VP Sara does not appear as an incorporator or director,'" he added.

Gular, however, maintained that the figures needed to be properly distinguished between Duterte’s reported ownership and the corporations’ financial information. He later raised the same concern over audited financial statements displayed by the prosecution.

Presiding Officer Francis “Chiz” Escudero then ruled in favor of the prosecution, ‘"If it so shows then the court will allow it."

‘Futile and meaningless’

House prosecutor Terry Ridon later asked the Senate impeachment court to strike from the record two statements made by the defense during its objection to the prosecution’s presentation of an SEC summary of Vice President Sara Duterte’s corporate interests.

The statements were: “a quick perusal of the document already shows some misrepresentation” and “clearly this is again an attempt to condition the minds of the public over these figures.”

Ridon argued that the statements should not form part of the proceedings, particularly because the document under discussion was an actual submission to the impeachment court. He also asked the court to remove what he described as a misleading heading in the document.

Lead defense counsel Atty. Sheila Sison opposed the request, calling it “futile and meaningless.”

“If truly the intention of the prosecution is just to present the documents and the data and information containing those documents, then the simple solution to their problem would have been to just simply refer to the certified true copies of the documents brought today by the witness,” she added.

Escudero subsequently ruled on the wording of the statements. He ordered the word “misrepresentation” replaced with “inaccuracies” in the first statement. For the second statement, Escudero ordered the phrase referring to an attempt “to condition the mind of the public” to be replaced with “to make conclusions of fact to the public.”

Gular deferred to the court on both changes: “We submit, Your Honor, to the court’s discretion.”